SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order dated 14-12-1985 of the Lahore High Court declaring the order dated 24-4-1975 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Lodhran to be without lawful authority.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to Killas Nos. 5 and 6 in Square No. 28 measuring 16 Kanals, in village Gogran of Tehsil Lodhran. On 20-8-1955 these Killas were proposed in the name of Ghulam Nabi, a claimant from Jullundar. The allotment was confirmed on 15-9-1955. He died in 1971 and his heirs sold the land to respondent No.1 on 26-8-1974.
3. On 2-4-1974 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner claiming that he was a prior allottee of the Killas number in question and that these had been confirmed in his favour on 6-8-1956. Consequently, the confirmation of the same Killas in favour of Ghulam Nabi was illegal. On the basis of an alleged compromise whereby the heirs of Ghulam Nabi were stated to have surrendered their rights in the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner, a Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by an order dated 24-4-1975 accepted the appeal. Respondent No. 1 challenged the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in revision before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who dismissed it on the ground that after the repeal of the evacuee laws he had no jurisdiction to entertain it. Respondent No.1 then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner.
The High Court found that as the order of confirmation in favour of Ghulam Nabi was prior in time the petitioner had no right to the Killas in dispute. Accordingly, it allowed the petition and declared the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to be without lawful authority.
4. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. When asked if he could show any order of the Settlement authorities whereby the Killas in dispute were ever proposed in his favour prior to their confirmation in the name of Ghulam Nabi, he was unable to give a satisfactory answer. It is to be noticed that the petitioner had placed before us the relevant extract from R.L.II register relating to Ghulam Nabi's allotment but he has not cared to do so in respect of his own allotment. As regards the alleged compromise before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner it has been disputed by the heirs of Ghulam Nabi. In any case as they had already sold the land to respondent No. 1 before the day when they allegedly appeared before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner they were not competent to surrender any rights in the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner. In support of his claim the petitioner relies entirely upon a Parchi Khatoni Taqseem but this does not bear the signatures of any authority competent to make the allotment.
Even if Parchi Khatonf Taqseem be a genuine document it does not appear that the petitioner or his father had ever asked for the permanent transfer of the land in dispute in their favour. It is also to be noticed that the land was confirmed in the name of Ghulam Nabi in 1955 and the petitioner did not care to file the appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner till 1974.
5. For the reasons stated above we do not think that this is a fit case where leave should be granted to the petitioner to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. Dismissed.